' The appellant Arshad Mahmood was recruited as an untrained teacher, on temporary basis, vide order, dated 19-12-1981 (Annexure A/5) issued by the District Education Officer, Rawalpindi.
According to the appellant (Annexure C/8). He was poised for appearing in the C.T. Examination when the Deputy District Education Officer, Rawalpindi terminated his services on 18-3-1987. He filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal resulting in his reinstatement in service vide order of this Tribunal dated 14-5-1991 in Appeal No, 776 of 1990 (pages-C/15-17) with the following further observations:- "The case is remanded to the District Education Officer, Rawalpindi to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with law and decide it on merits after hearing the appellant. The intervening period during which the appellant remained out of service shall be decided by the competent Authority in the light of the outcome of the de novel proceedings. There are no orders as to costs.
ANNO UNCED."
' The appellant was accordingly reinstated in service by the Deputy District Education Officer, Rawalpindi vide his order, dated 16-6-1991 and the appellant resumed duty on 25-6-1991. The services of the appellant were, however, terminated again by the Deputy District Education Officer through a general letter dated 24-1-1994 (Annex. B/6). According to the written objections filed by the department, the services of the appellant were finally terminated on 26-5-1994 on the ground that the earlier order of the Deputy District Education Officer, dated 24-1-1994 had been passed without observing proper procedure. The officer representing the respondent department has, however, produced a letter, dated 8-6-1994 (annexed to the file) which reads as under:- "The undersigned on the applicants appeal to the Minister for Azad Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs, Islamabad, has gone through all the record in the office and cases in High Court and Service Tribunal.
' An inquiry on 26-4-1994, he could not prove his right to remain in service under rules Punjab Education Department. Hence ,you are hereby terminated from service from 26-5-1994."
2. The appellant filed a representation against the order, dated 24-1-1994 on 30-1-1994 to the next higher authority i. e. District Education Officer and finding no response to the said appeal, filed the instant appeal before this Tribunal 'on 10-5-1994 assailing the order, dated 24-1-1994 whereby his services had been terminated.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the services of the appellant were actually terminated on the ground that he had failed to pass C.T. Examination within the stipulated period of three years. The learned counsel states that the department itself allowed the appellant to appear in the C.T. Examination and that once he had passed the examination, he was entitled to be reinstated in service. To substantiate his submissions, the learned counsel has produced a copy of the certificate issued by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (annexed to the file).
According to the certificate, the appellant Mr. Arshad Mehmood passed the C.T. Examination held in the year 1995 by securing 477 marks (E) Grade vide Roll No, 448. The learned counsel contends that the appellant was entitled to reinstatement in service.
4. Learned counsel further refers to the letter of appointment dated 19-12-1981 whereby the appellant was initially recruited as untrained teacher to show that according to the said letter, the appellant was not required to pass C.T. Examination within any specific period. The learned counsel further maintains that the respondent department had illegally terminated the services of the appellant particularly when the appellant had already passed C.T. Examination with the only exception of two papers in the year 1993. According to the learned counsel, there was absolutely no justification for terminating the services of the appellant who had passed examination with the exception of only two papers which he was likely to clear in the near future. The learned counsel asserts that somewhere in some one's mind, malice was at work which culminated in the sudden termination of services of the appellant by the Deputy District Education Officer who virtually condemned the appellant unheard with the result that the respondent department was constrained to revise the order of termination earlier issued on 24-1-1994 by a subsequent order, dated 8-6-1994 to clothe it with a semblance of legality. According to the learned counsel, the subsequent action of the respondent department to make illegal order legal had itself exposed the invalidity of the proceedings taken by the department against the appellant.
5. The officials representing the respondent department refers to Notification No, S. P . (NGA) A-1/78, dated 1-3-1989 issued by the Government of the Punjab, Education Department to contend that the services of such untrained P.T.C. Teacher who had failed to obtain professional qualifications within a stipulated period of 3 years were liable to termination. Learned District Attorney accordingly maintains that the respondent department had rightly terminated the services of the appellant in the year 1994 as he had yet to pass the examination. He has asserted that the mere fact that the appellant had passed 10 out of 12 papers did not imply that he had passed full examination and had become eligible for retention in service. According to him, the appellant was still ineligible for regularization as a trained teacher when his services were dispensed with on 8-6-1994. Learned District Attorney further maintains that even if the appellant had some claim for reinstatement in service as he had rendered over 10 years' service in the department, he was not entitled to the benefits of pay etc. From 8-6-1994 onward as his services were terminated at a time when he had not become eligible for regular appointment as a trained teacher.
6. I have given my anxious thought to the points raised by the learned counsel representing the parties in the course of their arguments. The responding department has not been able to show that the condition of obtaining professional qualifications within 3 years had been prescribed with A the approval of the rule-making authority. Notification of the Education Department bearing No, SO(NG)1-63/78, dated 1-3-1979 cannot obviously be invoked as a substitute for rules particularly when the original order of reappointment does not lay down any such condition. However, the fact remains that a person can be recruited as teacher on regular basis only if he possesses the professional qualifications i,e, P.T.C./C.T./B.Ed./M.Ed. As the case may be. There is no doubt about the fact that the appellant has taken 14 years in passing the examination. If the respondent department was exasperated after 13 years, it cannot be censured for the action taken by them.
However, on legal plane, it would have been more appropriate if they had waited for the final outcome of the examination in which the appellant had appeared and had shown sufficient promise. He eventually passed the examination only the next year i,e, in 1995. The appellant, therefore, seems to have retrieved much of the lost ground.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, I accept the appeal, reinstate the appellant in service with the stipulation that the period from the date of his termination of service i,e, from 8-4-1994 till he resumes duty shall be treated as leave without pay.
8.The parties are left to bear their own costs.
' Appeal allowed as above.